What Happened To Great Britain's War Generals After The Revolutionary War In 1783
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The funny part is that people here still suppose that Paul Revere rode around yelling "The British are coming!" That would make as much sense as riding around Seattle crying "The Americans are coming!" What he most likely said was "The Regulars are out," because 'regulars' made a distinction between temporary militia serving in an emergency and full-time members of an army. There yet being no Continental Regulars, 'the Regulars' could mean only one thing.
Its true that Paul Revere cried out "The Regulars are coming" and not "the British are coming." There are other myths about his ride too, such as that the two lanterns set in the steeple of the Old North Church were placed there to tell him whether the British were going to Lexington by land or by sea. In reality, the lanterns were placed there at Revere's direction to inform the colonists across the water from Boston which way the British were coming. Another myth about Paul Revere's Ride is that he was the only rider that night. In reality there might have been in around two dozen riders.
Most of the myths surrounding Paul Revere's Ride are products of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "Paul Revere's Ride." There is more about what actually happened on this page [url=http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/paul-reveres-ride.html] Paul Revere's Ride [/url]
Last edited by theminuteman; 03-01-2010 at 11:47 PM..
Reason: fixing website address
For those who've studied the American Revolutionary War i'm curious as to what ever did become of Great Britain's Generals i.e. Howe, Gage, Clinton, Cornwallis and others top officers after the war. I assume they were forced to retired (sacked)? Did any of them go into politics or start some kind of business venture and become either rich or poor and impoverish? Did any of the younger officer core during the war rise in ranks to lead Great Britain against Napoleon some 10 years later in 1793 in the ''First Coalition'' of nations that opposed him etc.
Back on topic! - None that you mentioned played a major role. Usually the old general's in Brittania settle down to become viscounts or dukes on a parcel of land granted by the king. The only difference is they were hoping the parcel would be an entire state in the Colonies, instead they had to settle for a patch of rural Ireland or something.
The only one I can think of is Hood, the British Admiral in the American Revolution also saw action in the frist few years of the French revolutionary wars. He was an excellent admiral actually, but he was aging.
Horation Nelson was a junior officer during the American Revolution but never saw action in that conflict. The rest that rose to prominence during the later stages of the napolean conflict (after 1805) were to young during the AR.
The British were better at guerilla war than the Americans were. Oriskany, Blue Licks, Cherry Valley, Wyoming Valley, Crawford's defeat---these should ring a bell.
Had the war wound down to a guerilla stage the Brits would then have had the time are resources to set light bobs, Tory rangers and Indians on the loose big time.
The British light infantry units were top notch as well. The British were much better prepared for North American warfare then most of my fellow Americans like to think. The whole myth about them marching in straight lines as if they were on parade in London is just that.
The British light infantry units were top notch as well. The British were much better prepared for North American warfare then most of my fellow Americans like to think. The whole myth about them marching in straight lines as if they were on parade in London is just that.
It's not a myth - that is EXACTLY what the tactic of the age was. The actual myth is that the Americans fought every battle behind trees. They lined up as well, and usually lost (but were able to simply flee and hide out and fight again).
But the British were able to adapt, yes. Forested North America was not the same as the open land of Europe. British started using Jagers from Hesse - elite light infantry "hunters" operating in small groups, very effective in flushing out troops hiding behing trees. Indian allies also helped. Cavelry for chasing down fleeing troops. Napolean is credited as starting the idea of skirmish tactics, but here they were put to use as well 25 years before they became a common element of war.
The british were terrible at, and rarely carried out, irregular warfare. If by that mean the regular british army. Torries and some native Americans in the service did better but they lost as often as they won as at Kings Mountain and the campaign against the Iroqois in New York which came close to destroying them. Paul Revere did not cry out much of any thing since he was stoped soon after he started riding. Other messengers spread the word.
Cornwallis did well in India and Ireland (although serious attrocities occured in the later case). Admiral Howe won a major naval victory in the early stages of the Napoleonic War. Few of the other British officers of senior rank commanded again. They were either discredited or too old by the time there were major ground operations (which really was not to 1807 in Europe to any signficant extent).
Banastre Tarelton (commander under Cornwallis) was a signficant political figure known for his efforts to take over command of the British army in Spain from the Duke of Wellington. He shows up in the Sharpe novels in that light.
I think the most under-considered advantage the Continental Army and Rebel militia had stemmed from their wretched conditions. British regulars, and often Tory militia, had things like uniforms, decent clothing, web gear, supplies, food, water, ammo, handy tools, and all manner of warmaking materiel. All that stuff weighs something. The Continentals would often lack any or most of the above, or have them in short supply. While that would mean they would suffer greatly, it would also make them faster, which would in turn mean that they would generally control the choice whether or not to engage. If you have veto power over a fight, and can choose your time and place, that is a tremendous advantage.
In short, the fact that the typical Continental soldier often dressed in rags, needed new shoes, was short on ammo, had no food, used makeshift web gear that needed constant repair, and generally was pitiable conferred a hidden strength, even as Washington was going once more to berate the Continental Congress and wealthy merchants for providing the military with nearly nothing, and beg for some help.
I don't think we actually got decent gear until later in the war when the French gave us some. Merci. At that point I bet we did slow down, but with French regulars and naval power added to their logistical support, and the British growing deeply sick of a war many considered fratricidal and ill-managed, that probably mattered less.
Speed matters if you maneuver. In the NE they rarely did. The British wanted some objective, say Philidelphia and the came on ponderously. The Americans would have a month or more to get to where the fighting was. Once the British won a battle, they rarely if ever vigerously pursued the rebel army. So speed was of little value.
In the south this was not the case. The lack of a supply train was an important reason that Greene was able to defeat the less nimble British. This so frustrated Cornwallis that he at one point burned his supply train in order to keep up.
As far as I know Cornwallis worked for the East Indies company rather than the British government in India. Its one of the bizare elements of late 18th century English policy that it was often carried out through private companies by soldiers they were in the service of the British Crown. It would be like General Dynamics deploying US marines to Okinawa on behalf of corporate interests.
He was, besides playing a key role in India and Ireland, the central negoiatior of the treaty of Amiens which briefly ended the English war with France (it restarted within a year).
Quote:
Cornwallis negotiated the terms of the Treaty of Amiens, which he signed on behalf the United Kingdom on 25 March with Napoleon. He and generalCharles O'Hara (his second in command from Charleston to Yorktown) have the rare distinction of dealing with both Washington and Napoleon.
Cornwallis was probably the best British general of the revolution if a grim soldier. He open fire on his own men at Guilford Court House to force the US to withdraw. And he was successful as a soldier, administrator, and diplomat elsewhere. Yet ironically he is chiefly remembered for losing the battle of Yorktown (which was really the Royal Navy's fault not his).
This is a pretty positive statement, because the Indian government is not fond of many other British officers...
Quote:
Cornwallis was buried there, overlooking the Ganges River, where his memorial continues to be maintained by the Government of India.
Cornwallis was a strange man in many respects.
Quote:
During the 1760s and early 1770s, Cornwallis regularly spoke out against the repressive tax policies that Britain was imposing on its American colonies. However, his sympathy did not extend to support for independence and he joined British forces in America in August 1776.
Later he argued for reforms in Ireland, notably the right of catholics to vote, but massacred Irish prisoners. In India he was known for judicial and administrative reforms - and great brutality. The same occured in many respects in America where he was a brillant and remarkably ruthless combatent as noted above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
